Naïve heuristics for paired comparisons: Some results on their relative accuracy

Journal of Mathematical Psychology

Volumn 50, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 488-494

  Katsikopoulos, Konstantinos V ^a   Martignon, Laura ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

^b LUDWIGSBURG UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Germany)

Author keywords

Condorcet jury theorems; Cue; Lexicographic; Minimalist; Na ve Bayes; Paired comparison; Social choice; Take The Best; Tallying

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747864452     PISSN: 00222496     EISSN: 10960880     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2006.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baucells, M., Carrasco, J. A., & Hogarth, R. M. (2005). Cumulative dominance and heuristic performance in binary multi-attribute choice. Unpublished manuscript, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
2. Ben-Yashar R., and Paroush J. A nonasymptotic Condorcet jury theorem. Social Choice and Welfare 17 (2000) 189-199
3. Bröder A. Assessing the empirical validity of "Take-The-Best" heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 5 (2000) 1332-1346
4. Bröder A., and Schiffer S. "Take The Best" versus simultaneous feature matching: Probabilistic inferences from memory and effects of representation format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 132 2 (2003) 277-293
5. Cooper G.F. The computational complexity of probabilistic inference using Bayesian belief networks. Artificial Intelligence 42 (1990) 393-405
6. Dawes R.M., and Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin 81 2 (1974) 95-106
7. Domingos P., and Pazzani M. On the optimality of the simple Bayesian classifier under zero-one loss. Machine Learning 29 (1997) 103-130
8. Einhorn H.J., and Hogarth R.M. Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 13 (1975) 171-192
9. Friedman N., Geiger D., and Goldszmidt M. Bayesian network classifiers. Machine Learning 29 2-3 (1997) 131-163
10. Gigerenzer G., Czerlinski J., and Martignon L. How good are fast and frugal heuristics?. In: Gilovich Th., Griffin D., and Kahneman D. (Eds). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 559-581
11. Gigerenzer G., and Goldstein D.G. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103 4 (1996) 650-669
12. Groffman B., and Owen G. Review essay: Condorcet models, avenues for future research. In: Groffman B., and Owen G. (Eds). Information pooling and group decision making: Proceedings of the second university of California, Irvine, conference on political economy (1986), JAI Press, Greenwich, CT 93-102
13. Gulliksen H. Theory of mental tests (1950), Wiley, New York
14. Hasher L., and Zacks R.T. Automatic processing of fundamental information. American Psychologist 39 (1984) 1372-1388
15. Hogarth R.M., and Karelaia N. Simple models for multi-attribute choice with many alternatives: When it does and does not pay to face trade-offs with binary attributes. Management Science 51 12 (2005) 1860-1872
16. Hogarth R.M., and Karelaia N. Ignoring information in binary choice with continuous variables: When is less "more"?. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 49 2 (2005) 115-124
17. Katsikopoulos, K. V., & Fasolo, B. (2006). New tools for decision analysts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems and Humans.
18. Kurz-Milcke E., and Martignon L. Modelling practices and "tradition". In: Magnani L., and Nersessian N.J. (Eds). Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values (2002), Plenum Press, New York 127-146
19. Lee M.D., and Cummins T.D.R. Evidence accumulation in decision making: Unifying the "take the best" and "rational" models. Psychnomic Bulletin and Review 11 2 (2004) 343-352
20. Martignon L., and Hoffrage U. Fast, frugal, and fit: Simple heuristics for paired comparison. Theory and Decision 52 (2002) 29-71
21. Martignon L., and Krauss S. Can l'homme eclairé be fast and frugal? Reconciling Bayesianism and bounded rationality?. In: Schneider S.L., and Shanteau J. (Eds). Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (2003), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 108-122
22. Martignon L., Vitouch O., Takezawa M., and Forster M. Naïve and yet enlightened: From natural frequencies to fast and frugal decision trees. In: Hardmann D., and Macchi L. (Eds). Thinking: Psychological perspectives on reasoning, judgment, and decision making (2003), Wiley, Chichester 189-211
23. Newell B.R., and Shanks D.R. Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing 'one-reason' decision-making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29 1 (2003) 53-65
24. Newell B.R., Weston N.J., and Shanks D.R. Empirical tests of a fast and frugal heuristic: Not everyone "takes-the-best". Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 91 (2003) 82-96
25. Nitzan S., and Paroush J. Optimal decision rules in uncertain dichotomous choice situations. International Economic Review 23 2 (1982) 289-297
26. Payne J.W., Bettman, and Johnson E.J. The adaptive decision maker (1993), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
27. Rakow T., Hinvest N., Jackson E., and Palmer M. Simple heuristics from the adaptive toolbox: Can we perform the requisite learning?. Thinking and Reasoning 10 1 (2004) 1-29
28. Rieskamp, J., & Dieckmann, A. (2004). Information redundancy of environments. Unpublished manuscript, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
29. Rieskamp, J., Hoffrage, U. (1999). When do people use simple heuristics and how can we tell?. In Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M., the ABC group, (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 141-167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
30. Tversky A. Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review 76 1 (1969) 31-48